IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI AT KANSAS CITY RUTH LOPEZ #1 Plaintiff, =2-13 I .3230 v. Case No. -32 'If us. ENGINEERING COMPANY 2-: gig a Missouri Corporation and JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI and 3 CONLEY M. MCANALLY 1414 N. Spring Street Independence, Missouri 64050 and ROBERT S- THEDINGER 17410 S. Wheatland Drive Belton, Missouri 64012 and THOMAS P. LILLIS 11212 Madison Avenue Kansas City, MO 64114 Defendants. FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR DAMAGES (Wrongful Death) COMES NOW Plaintiff Ruth Lopez, by and through her attorneys, and for her causes of action against the Defendants, and each of them, states and alleges as follows: THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Ruth Lopez is a resident of Kansas City, Jackson County, Missouri and is the surviving mother of Nancy R. Lopez, who died on October 9, 2010. 2. Defendant U.S. Engineering Company (hereinafter referred to as Engineering") is. a Missouri Corporation which maintains its principal place of business located at 3433 Roanoke Road Kansas City, Jackson County, Missouri and which maintains a registered agent for service of process in the State of Missouri, namely Stephen B. Sutton, Suite 2800, 2345 Grand Blvd, Kansas City, Missouri 64108-2684. 3. Defendant Jackson County, Missouri (hereinafter referred to as "the County") is a political subdivision of the State of Missouri operating under a charter form of government and which may be served with process by serving County Executive Mike Sanders, 415 E. 12"' Street, 2nd Floor, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. 4. Defendant Conley McAnally is an individual that resides at 1414 N. Spring Street, Independence, Missouri 64050. 5. Defendant Conley McAnally was a public employee of Defendant Jackson County and was the Director of Building Services for Defendant Jackson County up to and including December of i982. 6. Defendant Robert S. Thedinger is an individual that resides at 17410 S. Wheatland Drive, Belton, Missouri. 64012. 7. Defendant Robert S. Thedinger was a public employee of Defendant Jackson County and was Director of Purchasing up and including 1983. 8. Defendant Thomas F. Lillis is an individual that resides at 1212 Madison, Kansas City, Missouri. 9. Defendant Thomas F. Lillis was a public employee of Defendant Jackson County and was the Director of Buildings and General Services for Defendant Jackson County from January 1983 up to and including December of 1991. JURISDICTION AND VENUE l0. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court. The acts complained of in this action occurred in this State, by Defendants and Defendants' employees and officers, all acting within the course and scope of their agency and employment in this State. Venue is proper pursuant to GENERAL ALLEGATIONS ll. Section 510.265 (2005) in limiting punitive damages to five times the amount of the civil damages verdict or $500,000, but exempting the State of Missouri from such limitation is unconstitutional in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article l, 2 of the Missouri Constitution in that it treats civil damages claims made on behalf of the state differently than those brought by civil plaintiffs and thereby violates equal protection because it lacks a rational basis. 12. Section 510.625 and 508.010 are part ofa single legislative act entitled House Bill 393 passed by the General Assembly of Missouri in 2005. The provisions ofthe bill violate: a. the requirement of one subject, Mo Const. Art. Ill, 23; b. the requirement of clear title, Mo Const. Art. Ill, ?23; c. the privileges and immunities clause, Mo. Const. Art., 13; d. the constitutional directives for amending statutes, Mo. Const. Art. 111, 28; e. the prohibition against special laws Mo. Const. Art HI, 40 f. separation of powers, Mo. Const. Art. 11, 1; and g. the limited to the purpose mandate, Mo. Const. Art. V, 13. Section 537.067 enacted as part ofHouse Bill 393 passed by the General Assembly of Missouri in 2005 in altering the concept ofjoint and several liability is unconstitutional in violation ofArticle I, ?l3 ofthe Missouri Constitution in that it retroactively applies legislation to acts that accrue prior to August 28, 2005 but are filed after August 28, 2005. 14. The County owns, operates, and maintains the Jackson County Courthouse located at 415 E. 12"' Street, Kansas City, Missouri (hereinafter referred to as the ''building''). 15. The building was originally constructed in 1933 and 1934. The original construction ofthe building included the application and installation of numerous asbestos containing materials (hereinafter ACM) that were used for purposes of insulation, sound proofing and/or fire retardation. 16. Defendants Conley M. McAnally and Robert S. Thedinger negotiated the contract between Defendant Jackson County and Defendant U.S. Engineering for the mechanical' and electrical renovations and new life safety system Bid No. 74-82. 17. Defendant U.S. Engineering had no connection with the design, planning or construction (including architectural, engineering or construction services) of the ACM as originally installed or applied to the building. 18. Defendant U.S. Engineering had no connection with the design, planning or construction (including architectural, engineering or construction services) ofthe building. 19. Since at least 1983 and up to and including the present, dust containing asbestos fibers have been released into the air within the building from the ACM due to: a. intentional demolition and removal ofthe ACM: b. accidental and unintentional damage, removal and/or disturbance ofthe and c. deterioration and degradation ofthe ACM. 20. The heating, ventilation. and air conditioning (HVAC) system at the building uses a system ofmore than fifty (50) air handling units to provide air flow to occupied spaces in the building. The release ofthe dust containing asbestos fibers at the building has occurred to such an extent that entire air handling units, including the fans. have been covered in asbestos. 22. The conditions at the building have resulted in dust containing asbestos fibers being blown and/or distributed into occupied spaces throughout the building. 23. The release ofthe dust containing asbestos fibers at the building created extremely hazardous and dangerous conditions such that the premises were not reasonably safe for people that the County knew would be exposed to asbestos. 24. Dust containing microscopic particles of asbestos fiber can travel through the air and be inhaled, ingested or absorbed by workers or other individuals near the ACM. This dust can enter the body through the airways (mouth and nose) or cling to the clothing of workers or other individuals and later be inhaled or ingested by those who come in contact with dust containing asbestos fibers. 25. Once asbestos fibers have entered the body they cannot be destroyed or expelled by the body. They remain embedded in the lung tissue and cause chronic irritation and inflammation that lead to the development of many different types of asbestos related diseases and conditions. 26. Defendant U.S. Engineering is a sophisticated engineering firm that at all relevant times hereto possessed specific knowledge concerning the dangers of asbestos, including, but not limited to the knowledge that people exposed to dust containing asbestos fibers will inevitably be harmed in some manner. 27. For more than thirty (30) years Defendant U.S. Engineering Company has entered into numerous contracts with Defendant County to perform demolition, renovation, repair, replacement and maintenance projects at the building including but not limited to: a. plumbing; b. electrical; and c. heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC). 28. While performing the various projects described in paragraph 27, Defendant U.S. Engineering caused the release of dust containing asbestos fibers into the air within the building due to: a. intentional demolition and removal of the and accidental and unintentional damage, removal and/or disturbance 29. While performing the various projects described in paragraph 27, Defendant U.S. Engineering was aware that its actions and omissions resulted in the release of dust containing asbestos fibers into the air within the building. 30. Defendant U.S. Engineering concealed the information regarding the release of dust containing asbestos fibers into the air within the building from: a. Jackson County, Missouri; b. the individuals who worked at, visited or otherwise occupied the building; and c. the general public. 3 1. From September 1975 until October 31, 2007 Nancy R. Lopez was employed by the State of Missouri as ajudicial administrative assistant in Division 7 ofthe Circuit Court oflackson County, Missouri at the building. 32. Nancy R. Lopez was unaware and had no reasonable way to know or realize that she was exposed to asbestos or the risks of being exposed to asbestos. 33. While present at the building between 1983 and 2007, Nancy R. Lopez was exposed to and inhaled, ingested, or otherwise absorbed dust containing asbestos fibers emanating from the ACM materials on the premises. 34. Additionally, dust containing asbestos fibers adhered to the person and clothing of Nancy R. Lopez and were carried home and otherwise off the premises ofthe building. While off the premises and outside the course of her employment, Nancy R. Lopez was exposed to and inhaled, ingested, or otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers that had adhered to. her person and clothing. 35. Nancy R. Lopez's exposure to and inhalation, ingestion, and/or absorption of said asbestos fibers was completely foreseeable and could or should have been anticipated by Defendants, including that Nancy R. Lopez would be exposed off the premises and outside the scope of employment. 36. Defendants knew or should have known that exposure to dust containing asbestos fibers posed an unreasonable risk of harm to Nancy R. Lopez and others similarly situated. 37. As a direct and proximate result of her exposure to the dangerous and hazardous ACM, Nancy R. Lopez developed mesothelioma and other asbestos--related diseases, all of which are progressive, latent, and insidious and none of which were diagnosed or discovered until April 22, 2009. 38. The only known cause of mesothelioma is asbestos exposure. Mesothelioma has a ten to fifty year latency period from the date of initial exposure to disease diagnosis. 39. Defendants' generation, use, handling, storage, treatment, demolition, removal and disposal of asbestos during the renovation, repair, maintenance and/or remodeling of the building and their failure to control and contain the same constituted numerous and repeated violations of environmental statutes and regulations, including but not limited to: Occupational Health and Safety Act (OSHA) Asbestos Regulations (29 CFR 19l0.l00l); and USEPA National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) Asbestos Regulations (40 CFR 61 Subpart M). 40. At all times mentioned herein, the Defendants have acted by and through their duly-authorized officers, managers, agents, servants, and/or employees, all of whom have acted within the course and scope of their employment or other relationship. COUNT I -- NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT U.S. ENGINEERING COMPANY COMES NOW Plaintiff and for Count I of her Petition for Damages against Defendant U.S. Engineering Company, states and alleges as follows: 41. To the extent they are not inconsistent with the allegations in this Count, Plaintiffincorporates all other allegations ofthis Petition as though more fully set forth herein. 42. Defendant had a duty to use ordinary care for the safety of Nancy R. Lopez and others in conducting any operations or activities at the building and in reducing or eliminating unreasonable risks that arose from those operations or activities. 43'. Defendant was negligent, careless, and reckless in the following respects, among others: It failed to require and/or provide equipment and engineering controls designed to contain asbestos fibers. and reduce the risk ofexposure to asbestos; lt] It failed and omitted to take reasonable precautions or to exercise reasonable care to publish, adopt and enforce a safety plan and a safe method of handling, removing and working around the asbestos in the building; It failed to replace ACM at the building with non~asbestos substitutes, which Defendant knew or should have known were available. It failed to adequately train and advise its own employees regarding the proper use of equipment and engineering controls necessary to contain asbestos fibers and reduce the risk ofexposure to asbestos; It failed to recommend appropriate methods to make safe the work environment of Nancy R. Lopez, knowing that she and other workers would be exposed to the ACM at the building; It failed to advise and warn Nancy R. Lopez that the ACM in the building were harmful, dangerous and life--threatening asbestos products; It failed to warn Nancy R. Lopez that she was working around ACM, including that Plaintiff was being exposed to asbestos fibers and the adverse health effects of such exposure; It failed to advise Nancy R. Lopez ofthe dangerous characteristics of asbestos; It failed to provide an adequate warning to persons such as Nancy R. Lopez ofthe dangers to her health in coming in contact with and breathing dust containing asbestos fibers; It failed to warn and/or advise Nancy R. Lopez regarding hygiene practices designed to reduce and/or prevent carrying asbestos fibers home; and It failed to provide any measures sufficient to protect Nancy R. Lopez from being poisoned, disabled and harmed by exposure to dust containing asbestos fibers; 44. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant"s negligence, Nancy R. Lopez incurred the following damages from the time of injury until her death: She suffered severe, permanent, and disabling injuries to her body. Specifically, she suffered from mesothelioma as a result ofher exposure to asbestos; She experienced great pain and suffering, both physical and mental, including mental anguish; Her life expectancy was greatly reduced as a result of her exposure to asbestos and the resulting mesothelioma; She expended, incurred, and became liable for large sums of money for medical treatment, including hospital bills, doctor bills, medications, and therapy; (es) She suffered lost income; She lost earning capacity; and She was prevented and hindered from attending to the normal affairs of her life. 12 45. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence Plaintiff has incurred damages including, but not limited to funeral expenses, pecuniary loss, loss of services, consortium, companionship, comfort, instruction, guidance, counsel, training and support. 46. The actions, conduct and omissions of Defendant U.S. Engineering Company were committed with complete indifference to or in conscious disregard for the safety and well--being ofthe Nancy R. Lopez and others. By virtue ofthe attitude and conduct of Defendant U.S. Engineering Company, Plaintiff is entitled to damages for the aggravating circumstances attending the death of Nancy R. Lopez in an amount that will properly punish Defendant U.S. Engineering Company and deter it and others from like conduct in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffprays forjudgment under Count I for general damages in such sum as is fair and reasonable, for special damages in such sum as proven at trial, for damages. for the aggravating circumstances attending the death of Nancy R. Lopez in an amount that will properly punish Defendant U.S. Engineering Company and deter it and others from like conduct, for Plaintiffs costs and expenses, and for such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. II STRICT ACTIVIIX CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT U.S. ENGINEERING COMES NOW Plaintiff and for Count II of her Petition for Damages against Defendant U.S. Engineering, states and alleges as follows: 47. To the extent they are not inconsistent with the allegations in this l? Count, Plaintiff incorporates all other allegations of this Petition as though more fully set forth herein. 48. Defendant U.S. Engineering's actions and omissions which caused the release of dust containing asbestos fibers into the air at the building while it was performing the various projects described in paragraph 27 were abnormally dangerous and constitute an ultrahazardous activity. 49. Defendant U.S. Engineering is liable to Plaintiff regardless of the amount of care exercised. 50. As a direct and proximate result ofthe actions and omissions of Defendant U.S. Engineering, Plaintiff and Nancy R. Lopez have been damaged as set forth in paragraphs 44 and 45. 51. The actions. conduct and omissions of Defendant U.S. Engineering Company were committed with complete indifference to or in conscious disregard for the safety and well-being of the Nancy R. Lopez and others. By virtue of the attitude and conduct of Defendant U.S. Engineering Company, Plaintiff is entitled to damages for the aggravating circumstances attending the death of Nancy R. Lopez in an amount that will properly punish Defendant U.S. Engineering Company and deter it and others from like conduct in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment under Count II for general damages in such sum as is fair and reasonable, for special damages in such sum as proven at trial, for damages for the aggravating circumstances attending the death of Nancy R. Lopez in an amount that will properly punish Defendant U.S. 14 Engineering Company and deter it and others from like conduct, for Plaintiffs costs and expenses, and for such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. QOUNT -- NEGLIGENCE PER SE CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT U.S. ENGINEERING COMES NOW Plaintiff and for Count of her Petition for Damages against Defendant U.S. Engineering, states and alleges as follows: 52. To the extent they are not inconsistent with the allegations in this Count, Plaintiffincorporates all other allegations ofthis Petition as though more fully set forth herein. 53. At all times material hereto, Defendant was required to operate in compliance with environmental statutes, regulations and standards, including, but not limited to: Occupational Health and Safety Act (OSHA) Asbestos Regulations (29 CPR 19l0.l00l); and USEPA National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) Asbestos Regulations (40 CRF 61 Subpart M). 54. Defendant violated these statutes, regulations and standards. 55. Plaintiff and Nancy R. Lopez are members ofthe class ofpersons intended to be protected by these statutes, regulations and standards. 56. The injuries and damages incurred by Plaintiff and Nancy R. Lopez are of the type that these statutes, regulations and standards were designed to prevent. 57. The violation of the statutes, regulations and standards was a proximate cause of the injuries and damages incurred by Plaintiff and Nancy R. Lopez. 58. As a direct and proximate result ofthe actions and omissions of Defendant U.S. Engineering, Plaintiff and Nancy R. Lopez have been damaged as set forth in paragraphs 44 and 45. 59. The actions, conduct and omissions of Defendant U.S. Engineering Company were committed with complete indifference to or in conscious disregard for the safety and well--being of Nancy R. Lopez and others. By virtue ofthe attitude and conduct of Defendant U.S. Engineering Company, Plaintiffis entitled to damages for the aggravating circumstances attending the death ofNancy R. Lopez in an amount that will properly punish Defendant U.S. Engineering Company and deter it and others from like conduct in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment under Count for general damages in such sum as is fair and reasonable, for special damages in such sum as proven at trial, for damages for the aggravating circumstances attending the death ofNancy R. Lopez in an amount that will properly punish Defendant U.S. Engineering Company and deter it and others from like conduct, for Plaintiffs costs and expenses, and for such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. 16 COUNT IV -- PREMISES LIABILITY CLAIMSAGAINST DEFENDANT JACKSON COUNTY COMES NOW Plaintiff and for Count IV of her Petition for Damages against the Defendant County, states and alleges as follows: 60. To the extent they are not inconsistent with the allegations in this Count, Plaintiff incorporates all other allegations of this Petition as though more fully set forth herein. Defendant had a duty to use ordinary care to make the building reasonably safe. 62. While its own employees and others were performing renovation, repair, replacement and maintenance projects at the building, Defendant County caused the release of dust containing asbestos fibers into the air at the building. 63. The release ofthe dust containing asbestos fibers at the building into the air created extremely hazardous and dangerous conditions such that the premises were not reasonably safe for people that Defendant Jackson County knew would be exposed to asbestos, including Nancy R. Lopez. 64. Defendant County knew of the extremely hazardous and dangerous conditions at the building and knew that it was not reasonably safe. 65.. The dangerous conditions created a reasonably foreseeable risk of harm ofthe kind that Nancy R. Lopez incurred. 66. Defendant County knew or had information from which it should have known, in the exercise ofordinary care, that persons such as Nancy R. Lopez 17 would not discover or realize the risk of harm posed by being exposed to the asbestos. 67. Defendant County knew that it was dangerous to work around and/or attempt to remove any of the ACM from the building without taking appropriate precautions, yet it failed to- use ordinary care to make the conditions ofits building reasonably safe for people such as Nancy R. Lopez and/or adequately warn of the extremely hazardous and dangerous conditions of its premises. 68. As a direct and proximate result ofthe actions and omissions of Defendant County Engineering, Plaintiff and Nancy R. Lopez have been damaged as set forth in paragraphs 44 and 45. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment under Count IV for general damages in such sum as is fair and reasonable, for special damages in such sum as proven at trial for Plaintiffs costs and expenses, and for such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. COUNT NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS AGAINST DEF ENDANTS JACKSON COUNTY, MCANALLY. THEDIN GER and LILLIS COMES NOW Plaintiff and for Count of her Petition for Damages against Defendants, states and alleges as follows: 69. To the extent they are not inconsistent with the allegations in this Count, Plaintiff incorporates all other allegations ofthis Petition as though more fully set forth herein. 70. Defendants had a duty to use ordinary care for the safety of Nancy 18 R, Lopez and others in conducting, supervising, overseeing, or managing any operations or activities at the building and in reducing or eliminating unreasonable risks that arose from those operations or activities. 71. Defendants breached their duties to Nancy R. Lopez in one or more of the following respects: They purchased/provided ACM for purposes of application at the above-named premises; They failed to replace the ACM at the premises with non-asbestos substitutes, which Defendant knew or should have known were available; They specified/required the use/application/removal of ACM by others, including its own employees and outside contractors, in the vicinity of Nancy R. Lopez and/or in areas in which Nancy R. Lopez performed work; They failed to require and/or provide equipment and engineering controls designed to contain asbestos. fibers and reduce the risks of exposure to asbestos; They required Nancy R. Lopez to perform work in the vicinity of those removing and/or disturbing the They failed to adequately train and advise their own employees regarding the proper use of equipment and engineering controls necessary to contain asbestos fibers and reduce the risk of exposure to asbestos; They failed to require and/or recommend appropriate methods to make safe the work environment of Nancy R. Lopez, knowing that she and other workers would be exposed to the ACM at the Jackson County Courthouse; They failed to advise Nancy R. Lopez of the dangerous characteristics of asbestos; They failed to provide an adequate warning to persons such as Nancy R. Lopez ofthe dangers to her health in coming in Contact with and breathing dust containing asbestos fibers; They failed to warn Nancy R. Lopez that she was working around ACM and of the risks associated therewith, including that Nancy R. Lopez was. being exposed to asbestos fibers and ofthe adverse health effects of such exposure; They failed to require and/or advise Nancy R. Lopez and others, including their own employees and outside contractors to use equipment and practices designed to reduce the release of asbestos fibers and/or exposure to asbestos; (1) They failed to require and/or advise Nancy R. Lopez of hygiene practices designed to reduce and/or prevent carrying asbestos fibers home; (in) They failed to provide any measures sufficient to protect Nancy R. Lopez from being poisoned, disabled and harmed by exposure to asbestos. 72. As a direct and proximate result of the actions and omissions of Defendants, Plaintiff and Nancy R. Lopez have been damaged as set forth in paragraphs 44 and 45. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment under Count for general damages in such sum as is fair and reasonable, for special damages in such sum as proven at trial for Plaintiffs costs and expenses, and for such other relief as the Court deemsjust and proper. COUNT VI -- STRICT ACTIVITY CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT JACKSON COUNTY COMES NOW Plaintiff and for Count VI of her Petition for Damages against Defendant County, states and alleges as follows: 73'. To the extent they are not inconsistent with the allegations in this Count, Plaintiff incorporates all other allegations ofthis Petition as though more fully set forth herein. 74. Defendant County's actions which caused the release of dust containing asbestos fibers into the air at the building while it's own employees or others were performing renovation, repair, replacement and maintenance projects was abnormally dangerous and constitutes an ultrahazardous activity. 75. Defendant County is liable to Plaintiff regardless ofthe amount of care exercised. 76. As a direct and proximate result ofthe actions and omissions of Defendant County, Plaintiff and Nancy R. Lopez have been damaged as set forth in paragraphs 44 and 45. WI-IEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment under Count V1 for general damages in such sum as is fair and reasonable, for special damages in such sum as proven at trial for Plaintiffs' costs and expenses, and for such other relief as the Court deemsjust and proper. COUNT VII -- NEGLIGENCE PER SE CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT JACKSON COUNTY COMES NOW Plaintiff and for Count VII ofher Petition for Damages against Defendant County, states and alleges as follows: 77. To the extent they are not inconsistent with the allegations in this Count, Plaintiff incorporates all other allegations ofthis Petition as though more fully set forth herein. 78. At all times material hereto, Defendant was required to operate in compliance with environmental statutes, regulations and standards, including, but not limited to: Occupational Health and Safety Act (OSHA) Asbestos Regulations (29 CFR 19101001); and USEPA National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) Asbestos Regulations (40 CRF 61 Subpart M). 72. Defendant violated these statutes, regulations and standards. 22 79. Plaintiff and Nancy R. Lopez are members ofthe class ofpersons intended to be protec.ted by these statutes. regulations and standards. 80. The injuries and damages incurred by Plaintiff and Nancy R. Lopez are of the type that these statutes, regulations and standards were designed to prevent. 8 l. The violation ofthe statutes, regulations and standards was a proximate cause ofthe injuries and damages incurred by Plaintiff and Nancy R. Lopez. 82. As a direct and proximate result ofthe actions and omissions of Defendant County, Plaintiff and Nancy R. Lopez have been damaged as set forth in paragraphs 44 and 45. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment under Count VII for general damages in such sum as is. fair and reasonable, for special damages in such sum as proven at trial for Plaintiffs' costs and expenses, and for such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, THE ACCURSO LAW FIRM A Professional Corporation 6, A . fig Louis C. #29827 E. Ann Wright #33094 Burton S. Haigh #49249 4646 Roanoke Parkway Kansas City, MO 64112 816/56l--3900 FAX: 816/561-2992 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 1 her by ce this Zzif day of 2011, that a copy ofthe forgoing was faxed and mailed, postage prepaid to: Gino Battisti Foley Mansfield, PLLP l00l Highlands Plaza Drive West Suite 400 St. Louis, MO 63110 314.645.7788. ext 2002 Fax: 314.645.9945 Dennis J. Dobbels Anthony J. Romano Anthony L. Springfield Polsinelli Shughart PC Twelve Wyandotte Plaza 120 West 12"' Street Kansas City, MO 64105 Phone; 816.421.3355 Fax: 816.374.0509 /gg; ii Attorney for Plaintill" 24